- From: Jerven Tjalling Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:15:30 +0100
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 16/02/15 16:03, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 2/16/15 2:58 AM, Jerven Tjalling Bolleman wrote: >> Problem: IRI's are global, shapes are local (or should be) as nicely >> illustrated in this example by Karen. >> >> http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 >> ldom:hasShape ex:bookShape ; >> dct:title "Moby Dick" ; >> dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ; >> dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" . >> >> I think Karen is right and that this is a "wrong" assertion. >> I believe it should be asserted as something like this. >> >> http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 >> ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ; >> ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; >> ldom:dataContext <> ]; >> dct:title "Moby Dick" ; >> dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ; >> dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" . > > No, actually, the original example is correct. My point is that my > desire to validate data does not translate into the data creator's > knowledge of my validation rules. There may be dozens of different > validation rules being applied to the same data by different users. > Think about making use of LOD data from a variety of sources who are > unaware of your use. I see your usecase, but I am surprised to read that you think the earlier version is better, when you are worried about ontological commitment. I am completely confused now. The first form states that http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 has a shape and this is always true. The second says it has a shape but is only true in a certain context. > > I already have many linked data sources that need to be combined for > some of my functions. I am not operating within only my own enterprise > data. Some of this is data like above; some of it is SKOS data. There > are vocabularies and re-usable graphs that are provided globally and > used by hundreds of different systems. Yes, which is why you want to have many different validation statuses, right? As the validation status is independent of the conceptual data, validation status is a local truth, not a global truth. e.g. Everywhere I am older than 18, but not everywhere it is legal for me to drink in a bar. The fact that I am older than 18 is a global truth. If a bar is allowed to serve me ethanol is a local constraint. > > And, precisely, shapes must be inferred in some cases. And sometimes they must be asserted? or am I reading it to shortly. > > kc > > kc > > >> >> But then it could be this as well >> >> http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 >> a [ rdfs:subClassOf ex:bookShape ; >> #subclass or type is both ok for me >> ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; >> ldom:dataContext <> ]; >> dct:title "Moby Dick" ; >> >> i.e. the choice for using the shape or class word does not make a >> difference. Also in both cases these would be classes per Peter's >> definition. As shape/class membership is asserted and not inferred. >> >> Side effects of asserting a ldom:dataContext is that such a context >> description can then have a cryptographic signature. e.g. >> >> >> http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479 >> ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ; >> ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ; >> ldom:dataContext [ ex:tripleSHA512 >> "259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" ; >> ex:pgpsignature ex:signer <mailto:example@example.org> >> ec:signature "259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" >> ] ]; >> >> And the shape membership can then also be signed. >> In other words, introducing a level of indirection between a resource >> and a "shape" allows lots of nice features and removes a lot of >> objections. >> >> Regards, >> Jerven >> On 16/02/15 11:00, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/14/15 9:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> >>> The question is only sensible if one already assumes RDFS >>> or OWL >>> >semantics. Outside of RDFS/OWL semantics, resources can >>> do all these >>> >things without being classes. >>> >>> OK, so replace RDF classes with "RDF types in RDF and RDFS >>> classes in >>> RDFS". The point is whether documents will contain triples that >>> use shapes >>> where there are now RDF type or RDFS classes. >>> >>> >>> >>> If instance data will use shapes where they now use RDF, how would >>> you fulfill the requirements implied in User Story #4 [1] where the >>> same node in a graph can serve multiple roles? Or in general how do >>> you address re-usability of your data in different contexts? >>> >>> >>> Shapes does not solve this problem, maybe postpone it a bit [1] until >>> when/if they get further adopted. In the same way one can use different >>> "shapes" at different contexts, one can use different class constraints >>> at different contexts. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0198.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> kc >>> [1] >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-__shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:___Issue_repository >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_Issue_repository> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dimitris Kontokostas >>> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig >>> Research Group: http://aksw.org >>> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerven Bolleman Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85 CMU, rue Michel Servet 1 Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58 1211 Geneve 4, Switzerland www.isb-sib.ch - www.uniprot.org Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 15:15:59 UTC